Where's Johnny Cash

[HighTechRedneck]

It's all bs about the paint you can take a photo of a bus you like to any of the bus painting guys like Wilson, Starr, Starjet or the guy in Mexico and tell them that is what you want go back in 2 weeks and that is what you get no question asked been there done that

Rarely pursued, absolutely.  But not bs in the slightest.  If I commissioned an artist to do a mural on the side of my bus and contracted it as a "work for hire".  Then a year later saw another bus on the road with the same mural, I could hire a lawyer and sue the other bus owner (I personally wouldn't even consider doing it, but legally could and would on solid legal footing).  During discovery it would be determined who did the paint job and they could be added to the suit.

There again, if it just a couple stripes, it would be much harder to win.  But duplication of murals would be a slam dunk in court and unique creative patterns would probably depend on the mood of the judge and the tenacity of the lawyers involved but could be pursued.

As the economy goes deeper in the tank, and more people/companies become desparate I think we can expect to see more civil suits over things that previously weren't pursued.  It doesn't always go well for the plaintiff, but it is costly for eveyone involved no matter who wins.  Google SCO Linux lawsuit to see a good example of that.

[John316]

I agree with what has been stated. Just because you can get somebody to do something, doesn't mean that it is right or okay, or that it won't get you in trouble.

I could get somebody to deliver a load of drugs, doesn't mean that it is okay or legal...(not that I would I am just making a point)

God bless,

John

[luvrbus]

Well guys I just talked to Mike Wilson he said bring any photo of a bus you like from Marathon (he painted there for 10 years) or any of the coaches manufactures as they all use the same software for graphics and he will paint it he needs the business it is slow in Oregon now.For the mural it has to be a original  and very few are original on the buses he knows of one and the guys wife done it. I had END OF THE TRAIL on mine for years.BTW I asked why he and Starr signed my paint job he laughed and said he was hoping for a little business from the job which he said he did get.FWIW he said I paid for the paint job him and Starr have no rights to it       good luck

[Sean]

I disagree. If I pay someone to perforn a job for me I own the rights not them, unless stipulated in contract otherwise. The man who invented the xerox machine does not have his name in the patent office xerox does, as the company that was employing him. The same is true of copyright law.

You are confusing patent law with copyright law.  Two separate things, that work very differently.  I am well-versed in both, although, as I have already stated, I am not an attorney.

And you are just plain wrong about the man who invented the Xerox machine, or anything else for that matter.  Patents, by law, can only be issued to individuals, not companies.  Every patent filed in the patent office has one or more names of specific people attached.  What Xerox (and everyone else in the intellectual property business) does is to make everyone who works for them sign a contract "assigning" the rights to all patents granted during the course of their employment to the company.

I have had to sign such an invention assignment agreement at every company I have ever worked for, starting with Bell Laboratories, which, in that day, had more patents to its credit than any other entity in existence.  Every one of those patents was issued to an individual or individuals.

When you "hire" an artist, such as a photographer or a painter, unless you have it in writing that he or she is assigning to you all rights in copyright, he or she retains them.  Period -- that is how the law is written, and there are thousands of cases tried in the courts that back it up.  It is only when that artist is your "employee" (and there are specific tests for that) and the art is created "in the performance of duties" as part of that employment, that you as the employer automatically retain rights.  And this applies only to copyright, not to patents, which must be explicitly assigned.

Again, folks, all of this can be verified by reading the relevant statutes and court cases.

[circusboy90210]

my only area of real knowledge is copyright but do remember a few things about  patent. corparations are just as much of an individual as a real live breathing person for legal reasons.

[Nusa]

...  If I commissioned an artist to do a mural on the side of my bus and contracted it as a "work for hire".  Then a year later saw another bus on the road with the same mural, I could hire a lawyer and sue the other bus owner (I personally wouldn't even consider doing it, but legally could and would on solid legal footing).  During discovery it would be determined who did the paint job and they could be added to the suit.
....

Of course when dealing with an unethical artist situation, you might discover your mural isn't the original either, and you haven't got a copyright to enforce! Only person you can sue then is the artist, and you might have to destroy your OWN mural to be legal!

[HighTechRedneck]

Of course when dealing with an unethical artist situation, you might discover your mural isn't the original either, and you haven't got a copyright to enforce! Only person you can sue then is the artist, and you might have to destroy your OWN mural to be legal!

Very true.  That sort of scenario is very similar to the SCO vs. IBM suit.  The judge's last ruling prior to SCO filing Chapter 11 bankruptcy was that Novell actually was the copyright holder of the programming code in dispute.

[Nusa]

my only area of real knowledge is copyright but do remember a few things about  patent. corparations are just as much of an individual as a real live breathing person for legal reasons.

Financially, perhaps, but there are lot of things corporations can't do. They can't learn to drive, they can't get married, they can't have octuplets, and they can't invent anything, since legal fictions have no minds or bodies. Patents require filing in the name of one or more "inventors". But as Sean said, the corporations own the patent rights of employee inventors, so it doesn't matter much in the end. But there are real human names on EVERY patent.

[Sean]

my only area of real knowledge is copyright but do remember a few things about  patent. corparations are just as much of an individual as a real live breathing person for legal reasons.

That is true in many areas of the law, however, a patent, by law, can only be issued to a named individual person or several individual persons, it can not be issued to a corporation.  Again, this is easily verified.  In part, the reason why patents can only be granted to individuals is that all the individual inventors must swear an oath under federal law.  If you look here:
http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portal/efs/dct_new_app_tutorial.pdf
and scroll down to "oath" you will see that all the individuals must be named -- a company name is not allowed.

An individual(s) to whom a patent has been granted is free to "assign" the rights to that patent to a corporation.  But the inventor's name stays on the patent, and it is the inventor who has sworn the legal oath about prior art and advancement thereof.  As I wrote earlier, most companies employing persons creating intellectual property have those individuals sign an agreement pre-assigning any and all rights in patents granted during the course of employment, or resulting from work done during said employment even after termination.  These agreements are legally enforceable.

One of the things that frosted me (and many others) when I worked at Bell Labs was that, if I invented something in my spare time at home, unrelated to telephones, they still had the rights to it, based on the way their assignment agreement was worded.

More patent (and trademark) questions can be answered on the PTO FAQ page:
http://www.uspto.gov/main/faq/index.html

Copyrights, in contrast, can be issued to companies without a specific author or artist having to be named.

-Sean
http://ourodyssey.blogspot.com

[JackConrad]

Sean, thanks for answering my questions. It looks like a lot of this is a "grey area" that would have to be resolved in a courtroom.  I have one final question, I see some of the fancy paint jobs on the newer coaches (both Conversions & S&S that are towing a matching enclosed trailer or vehicle. Does this mean that if they did not have have the trailer/vehicle painted by the same place that painted their coach they are quilty if copyright infringement?  Jack

[HighTechRedneck]

Sean, thanks for answering my questions. It looks like a lot of this is a "grey area" that would have to be resolved in a courtroom.  I have one final question, I see some of the fancy paint jobs on the newer coaches (both Conversions & S&S that are towing a matching enclosed trailer or vehicle. Does this mean that if they did not have have the trailer/veheicle painted by the same place that painted their coach they are quilty if copyright infringement?  Jack

The trailer issue would definitely be a grey area.  Due to differences in the shape and surface area, it might possibly fit under the term "derivative work".  That would be splitting the hair mighty thin, but it might hold up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

In any case, if a person just spent all that money with them on a new one, it is very unlikely they would choose to enforce any potential infringement involving the trailer.  The exception again would be if an individual third party artist held the rights to it.  But in the case of the major RV companies, that is not very likely.

[jackhartjr]

Some of those graphics are stick on, hard to fathom.  We thought about matching our truck to the Flagstaff graphics, however they are glue on vinal, if they would have been the good stuff I would have done it.
Jack

[buswarrior]

Seems to be few on here that have ever created something as part of their income.

Copyright and intellectual property concerns are just as important as employment law, immigration law, import and export law, union contracts, and every other law that happened to protect YOUR way of earning an income.

If there is a right to compensation involved, stealing ideas is no different than stealing a tradesman's tools, failing to pay a worker for his/her labour, outsourcing work to a low pay foreign land, or every other way you can harm a person's ability to earn their pay.

Just because you don't understand a body of law, or it doesn't apply to your income, let's show a bit of respect, shall we?

happy coaching!
buswarrior

[Sean]

...  I have one final question, I see some of the fancy paint jobs on the newer coaches (both Conversions & S&S that are towing a matching enclosed trailer or vehicle. Does this mean that if they did not have have the trailer/vehicle painted by the same place that painted their coach they are quilty if copyright infringement?

That's a great question.  I like the answer already posted, which is that it most likely qualifies as a derivative work.  I also agree that, as the purchaser of the original paint job, it is unlikely any artist would want to pursue you for "adding on" to their work by extending it with a trailer.

My observation is that most artists in this industry are willing to relinquish their rights in the work to the original purchaser -- witness what Mike Wilson said, passed along in an earlier post.  I also asked John Stahr for his thoughts on this discussion; while acknowledging that it would be his legal right to enforce his copyrights, he feels that it would be nearly impossible to do so, and does not pursue it:

... It is mostly the dignity of a bus  owner to want to be an original bus owner, or the bus painter to not want to copy someone else's design, but the insistence of a paying customer is often more of an incentive to just do what the customer wants to pay for.  However, these days, anyone can sue anyone for anything if they want to find an attorney to take on the case, and see how they can contribute to the lightening of everyone's wallet within their district of influence.

There is legislated law that regards any original creative work by an artist becomes the intellectual property of the creator.  The challenge becomes defending it.  A typical shop could just say we used different colors and so it is an original on it's own.  So I tend to just try to design without copying others, and often try to create some hand painted elements  that are just too much trouble to try to copy by others. ...

John is pretty much out of the coach painting business -- he mostly does airplanes now (and anyone who has not seen some of his fantastic oil paintings of aircraft is truly missing something).  And, yes, John gave me permission to share his comments here.

So, given all that, I would think doing a trailer would not likely get you in trouble.  And, to be clear, I don't really think the OP will get in trouble for doing a "tribute" coach in Cash's colors -- but he could.  And here's really the clincher:  How hard is it to just ask?  I mean, really -- if someone truly believes that the original owner of a work that they wish to copy won't mind (or will, as someone suggested earlier, see it merely as flattery), then why not call or write that owner and ask for permission?  If you were right in your supposition that it would be OK, the permission is likely to be granted with no further fuss.  And if you were wrong, and the original artist or owner either says no or asks for compensation, well, then you'd know where you stand if you were to go ahead and do it anyway.

As the Copyright office says, it is always better to secure permission, especially if there is any doubt about whether a work is protected or whether your use of it falls within the doctrines of fair use, derivative works, "tributes," or any other mechanism that does not require permission.

-Sean
http://ourodyssey.blogspot.com

[Dreamscape]

Wow, and this was the original question.........A BCM reader is looking for the issue than ran an article on Johnny Cash and his bus.  He's looking to mirror the exterior paint scheme on his MC9.   Does anyone have this magazine and/or know the month and year it was published?

Thanks,

Treasure Hunter
Chad
BCM Editor

I probably have the issue, but it's in storage............someplace.............

I'll dig into it when I return April 4th, unless someone has found it for you. Can't you look it up in your archives?

~Paul~